About your Search

20121114
20121114
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)
not the ones that bill o'reilly wants to celebrate. >> in your book you say ronald reagan lied about poverty so he could succeed. you wrote middle class folks didn't have to worry they were indulging resentment. they were doing it because those programs hurt poor people. reagan said so. do the republicans still believe this message? >> i don't know if they really believe it. i don't know if they care. they don't care about the poor, but they've been selling it for a long time, ed. i'm with michael. he is looking backwards to an america that wasn't as wonderful as he thinks, and he's becoming kind of like a glenn beck figure. he's really not leaving it alone. when he went here on election night, i thought maybe he'll get over it. the majority of americans voted for barack obama. we have values. the majority of catholics voted for barack obama. a vast majority of jews voted for president obama. he has a problem with white protestant southern evangelical people, but he doesn't have -- it's not his whole coalition is secular. we have values, too. >> professor, how can we not come to the conclusion
of the major puzzles and challenges for the republican party now as it was a generation ago. ronald reagan, in part with the help of jack kemp a generation ago, found a way to sell supply side economics as a blue collar alternative. to sell it to the common man. that's what reagan and kemp were all about. the republicans lost the ability to do that. they lost the argument once. they're going to have to figure out how to make that argument again because if they're going to say that unleashing the power of the free market is the route forward for the middle class and the working people of america, they need convincing arguments and convincing people to do it. mitt romney, if you look at it from even the slightest distance, was arguably the worst possible carrier of that message. they need somebody else. they need southern populism or populism from somewhere, but they also need the proof. they need the evidence. and lacking the evidence last time in the election of a week ago, a week or two ago, people went with the -- what they knew, which was the president's belief in the power of governmen
tip o'neill and ronald reagan on social security reform we can add years of solvency and to medicare and do it and increase benefits like with obama care and we need both sides to be willing. i know the democrats are willing. president obama's willing to sit down at the table. what we don't need to do i can tell you is cut benefits. that's something that i don't think is the first thing that should be put forward. we have a lot of opportunity to continue to make reforms in medicare, make sure we build in more efficiencies to the program so we can add the years of solvency. >> what about eligibility age change? >> well, eligibility age change would fall in the realm of benefit cuts. we need to focus like i said first on making sure we build in more efficiencies to the program. we have been able to from obama care make sure that with that $716 billion in savings plowed in to waste, fraud and abuse -- fighting waste, fraud and abuse we have collected more than $10 billion in fraudulent medicare payments and we can make more progress in that area, as well. >> thank you so much. i greatly
interpretation. he went in there with one goal, like ronald reagan used to do, i want one headline, don't let the middle class be held hostage. he repeated it over and over again. >> reporter: he said it 19 times. >> he didn't want the headline to be switched by adversarial press or neutral press that didn't to want go with his line to say him, adamantings president adamant on rich paying 39.6%. maybe that's why you softened up to you. just an interpretation. >> reporter: i can tell you congressional republicans were happy with his response. they like to know there is some give. here's where the give could be, chris. nobody's talked about this. i mean, there's been some behind the scenes chatter on this, which is you could see tax rates temporarily go up just not all the way to 39%. it could be somewhere in the middle. ends up being the compromise for the one year. don't forget, this is all about setting the tax rates simply for 2013, while they negotiate larger tax reform. so, that could be what the wiggle room is. obviously, republicans have said they don't want to raise tax rates at all. t
countries have transformed, reform, lower the rates. we haven't touched it since ronald reagan in 1986. bill clinton did raise it at one point but we haven't done anything to touch the rate and reform -- tecum from 16.5% to 15% which most of you are aware of because you do business there, and this capital investment is going to follow countries that have a more competitive environment in taxes is one of them's a we have to reform the tax code and when you do that you will get more revenue. it's guaranteed. again, as i was talking at earlier there are opportunities here for us as a country and if you look at the congressional budget analysts this and go to the tax committee analysis what tax reform could mean in the economic growth and all of them will lead to more growth with this corporate tax reform. estimate of the president says what he did last friday, this was fought over in the campaign and we fought over rising tax rates. jay carney said they would veto any bill that extends the current tax rate so if he insists that tax rates go out for those making over to under $50,000 will would
by finding common ground with the other side. ronald reagan did it with a democratic house after a resounding second term victory. as did bill clinton with the republican controlled house and republican controlled senate after a more resounding second term victory then president obama. both examples, both of them, illustrate the rare opportunity that divided government presents. president obama can follow suit or he can take the extremist view that both reagan and clinton rejected by founding his nose at the other side and insisting that if republicans are not willing to do things his way he will not do anything at all. if the president is serious, he will follow the lead of president reagan and clinton. if he is really serious, he will put the campaign rhetoric aside, propose a realistic resolution that can pass a republican controlled house and a divided senate, and work to get it done. if the president acts in this spirit, i have no doubt he will have the support of his own party and a willing partner in hours. the american people will criticize of relief knowing not only that we have avoi
the center. as an independent, i can give advice to both parties. >> ronald reagan and jack kemp -- the party of upward mobility, that didn't seem to be the republican party this year. now, maybe it was because of this very effective attack campaign against mitt romney and bain capital and 47% of all that stuff. but i think hispanics and asians -- and a lot of women, they didn't vote for the republican party not just if you are hispanic because you think their anti-immigrant, but because it doesn't seem like the kind of party that will create a country in which you are were going to have a chance to rise. it seems, by their own statement and also by the definition the democrats gave them, is a more exclusive thing. if republicans don't change that, their future is not good enough let me just say that it he would've been allowed to be out there a little bit more -- he was a jack kemp disciple. i think it's remarkable that we could reelect an african-american president with the name of barack obama at a time when you had almost 9% unemployment in the country was suffering economically. no that
Search Results 0 to 16 of about 17 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)